Is it true that Ronald Reagan as president (1981-1989) supported the racist Apartheid policy of South Africa at the time? It seems so hard to believe, since Reagan is such a figure-head not only to white, but to black conservatives now. Here are some cites that I found:
You will have to forgive the strong language on that last one, but I am only using what came up with the search engine:).
This cite compares the differences between the sanctions against Apartheid and the U.S.'s sanctions against Cuba today. You can read the part about Reagan supporting Apartheid in the opening 2 paragraphs:
So it’s true. Ronald Reagan did support Apartheid. What reasons did he give? Was he really supporting just the government of South Africa and not racism? Or did he think he could get the government out by other means than outright sanctions? Does anyone know the answers to these questions?
Reagan was not supportive of Apartheid. He was, however, oppossed to communism. South Africa was a powerful bulwark against the various communist groups running around southern Africa at the time.
Orval Faubus and George Wallace were not supportive of Segregation. They were, however, opposed to communism. The Klan was a powerful bulwark against the various communist (i.e. “Civil Rights”) groups running around the southern United States at that time.
Not being for sanctions is not the same thing as being for apartheid. People have legitimate arguments as to why sanctions can actually be counter-productive: after all, I make that argument all the time in terms of Iraq, China, and Cuba. Pouring in American products and culture and prosperity in general can be far more destabilizing than trapping people in with only their regime to speak to and “comfort” them.
Indeed. Just as being opposed to the sanctions on Iraq, as many people were before the war buid-up started, did not mean they supported Saddam Hussein. All the quotes in the OP concern Reagan’s opposition to sanctions. If you think Reagan actually, literally supported the apartheid regime, you prove it.
I think the main issue for Reagan was that the African National Congress, Nelson Mandela’s group, was very much a Marxist and terrorist organization. Reagan was against both Marxists and terrorists, and as such, refused to support Mandela or his group despite the nastiness of Apartheid.
That’s true, Apos, but Reagan spoke favorably of the S.A. government and their “resistance” to communism. He did not simply say that sanctions were not the way to effect change, he clearly indicated that he saw no need for change. (Just as he generally lied about the black experience in the U.S. in order to justify his opposition to government “interference” in racial relations in the U.S.)
I doubt that Reagan was a Faubus-variety racist.
However, he was generally hostile to any efforts to do anything that might appear “Left wing” in nature–and he did nothing offer assistance to any black group on any level while he was in office.
The phrase that the Reagan administration used was, “Constructive Engagement” towards South Africa.
More generally, whether sanctions work should be considered on a case-by-case basis, IMO.
In certain countries, freer trade can encourage decentralizing forces in a centrally planned economy: examples might be China and Cuba.
It is difficult to see how this argument could have applied to South Africa in the 1990s: the apartheid regime put up few barriers to American culture at the time, and it would be straightforward to exclude books and the like from a sanctions regime.
Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the rock band Queen performing in Sun City could be a destabilizing force in Pretoria, for example.
[A particularly effective form of sanctions might have been to divest certain central banks of their gold reserves, btw. That effort was never attempted.]
Here’s a link for the OP:
"At issue is the question of whether quiet diplomacy undertaken in the name of incremental change and the avoidance of bloodshed operate, instead, as a tacit endorsement of a repressive regime which will then lack motivation to change. "
Here’s a history: http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/saintro.htm
“Throughout his tenure, President Reagan studiously avoided criticizing the South African government, repeatedly praising the Botha Administration for making substantial reforms despite the overwhelming evidence of the continued and extensive exploitation and oppression of the black majority in South Africa. He has directly and openly embraced the Botha Administration as “an ally and friend,” …”
Plus, the feeling was, South Africa was an ally. Why stir up trouble with them by pressuring them about internal matters, especially because they were fighting the Communists in Angola.
Besides, there was the fear that if Apartheid was gotten rid of, South Africa would be another Zimbabwe, and Zimbabwe wasn’t really pro-US.
I don’t think there’s any question that the United States has supported and funded a great many dictatorships and tyrannies in support of its own interests, and South Africa - a country that back then could reasonably be described as a criminal state every bit as evil and substantially more dangerous than Iraq is today - was the worst of a bad lot. Nor is there any doubt that the USA was the enemy of some democratically elected governments.
So… Guinastasia, do you think Jimmy Carter supported apartheid? After all, the U.S. under his administration was a friend of South Africa. I mean, why stop at Reagan? There’s no dividing line at January 20, 1981 when the U.S. suddenly started trade with the Afrikaaners.
Frankly, no civilized nation should have even recognized South Africa as a legitimate country or entertained the servants of its evil regime as diplomats. But the West supported a lot of odious regimes, and still does. However, that doesn’t mean Reagan supported apartheid any more than Saint Jimmy Carter, the Nobel laureate, supported murder, despite the fact that Carter happily gave aid and comfort to some of the most homicidal tyrants on the face of the Earth. Look up the Shah of Iran sometime, a guy who got lots of aid from Carter. It’s just that they figured, well, it’s the lesser of two evils to support (Tyrant) to oppose Communism. In a lot of cases, they may well have been terribly wrong.
Indeed. And in every vote the US was joined by the UK. But paradoxically, or perhaps not, the US, UK, and France also vetoed the representation of South Africa in the UN (1974). I guess it goes to show that nothings is ever black and white.
I think it was only a couple of weeks ago I heard mention of the mad bat Thatcher changing her mind on Mandela – well, at least as much as she’s ever likely to change her mind. It was a report of what she’d said in an interview … something along the lines of : “ … well, we’re (sic) not as opposed to him now because it’s all worked out so terribly well for the people … “ Poor old bird’s lost her pyjama’s, always had in my view.
Of course the geo-politics of the region, the strategic importance of SA and the Cold War / ANC communist thing didn’t help but thems were ugly days …
To answer the OP, SA was either racist or (seemingly) communist at that time. And it was the most powerful nation in Africa. Choices, choices …
Probably because the US during the Carter administration vetoed a UN resolution condemning SA for apartheid and calling on sanctions, and that really, US policy towards South Africa during the Carter years was similar to US policy towards South Africa during the Reagan years.
